Propagation and the Expression of Religious Laws

This is a clear line in the life of Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.); in a more distinctive and more explicit form what can be seen in the lives of the other Imams (P.B.U.T.), to the extent that Shi‘ite jurisprudence has been named “Ja‘farī Jurisprudence” and to the extent that all those who have ignored the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) political activities are collaborators on these words that Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.) had the largest–or one of the vastest–theological and jurisprudential seminaries of his time. At the same time, according to most researchers something that has remained concealed about the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) life is the political and objective concept of this action and now we will deal with it.
Initially it should be known that, in Islam, the caliphate differs with all other systems of government in that it is not just a political organization; rather, it is a politico-religious leadership. The name and title of “Caliph” for the Muslim ruler indicates this same reality that he is more than a political leader; he is the successor of the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) and the Prophet (P.B.U.H. & H.H.) is the one who brings a religion and is an instructor of morals and, of course, at same time, he is the ruler and political leader. Thus, in Islam, apart from politics, the caliph is responsible for the people’s religious affairs and their religious leader, as well.
This indisputable fact caused the future authorities, after the first line of Muslim Caliphs, who had very little knowledge about religious affairs or were completely deprived of religious knowledge, to seek compensation for this deficiency from religious figures who would provide it to them and with the cooperation of jurisprudents and commentators and scholars and those mercenary specialists in traditions to make this system a mixture of religion and politics again.
Another benefit that the existence of jurisprudential elements had in the government apparatus was that they could easily change and transform the practical laws of religion as required by matters in accordance with the whims and commands of the oppressive and despotic authorities and put it in a disguise of deduction and reasoning–which is not recognizable for ordinary people–and transform Allah’s judgment for their gods.
Writers of books and historians of previous centuries have mentioned frightening examples of fabricated traditions and interpretations according to a judgment in which the hand of political powers is often evident. This task which had the form of a narration and tradition in the early times–until the latter part of first century A.H.–had also found the form of fatwa (religious decree) also; and so there were many jurisprudents in the latter part of the Umayyad period and the beginning of the ‘Abbasid period who, by using innovative methods such as analogy and juristic preference (istiḥsān), issued Islamic practical laws according to their own opinion–which, were in fact mainly the views of the powerful rulers. This was done concerning the interpretation (or exegesis) of the Qur’ān. Interpretation of the Qur’ān according to the interpreter’s judgment and viewpoint was one of those actions that could easily transform Allah’s ordinance in the opinion of the people and convince them to believe in whatever the interpreter–who in turn mostly wanted what the ruler had wanted.
It was in this way that, from the earliest Islamic periods jurisprudence, traditions, and interpretation were divided into two general trends: One was the trend that was dependent on the usurper system of governments that, in many cases, would sacrifice the interests of those systems and distort the commandments of Allah for an insignificant price; and the other was a pure and trustworthy system that made no interest preferential to the interest of explaining the true practical laws of Allah and in each step it inevitably confronted the ruling system and its hireling system of ruling and jurisprudence; and from that day, in most cases, it had an illegal and unofficial form.
With this knowledge, it can be clearly understood that Ja‘farī Jurisprudence, contrary to the official jurisprudence of the jurist of the time of Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.), was not just a simple discrepancy of religious belief; rather, at the same time, it carried with it two protesting themes. First and more important: The first and the more important theme is the proof of the ruling system’s lack of religious awareness and its inability to manage the intellectual affairs of the people–that is, actually, its incompetence to hold the office of the caliphate–and the other theme is the clarification of the cases of distortion in the official jurisprudence, which originates from that which is in the interest of jurisprudents in the expression of jurisprudential laws and their circumspection and the domineering and the will of the ruling powers. Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.) practically stood up in challenge against that government by increasing facilities for acquiring knowledge and expressing Islamic jurisprudence and doctrines and interpreting the Qur’ān in a manner other than the manner of the scholars that were affiliated with the government. In this way, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) vilified all religious organizations and official expertise which were considered to be one important side of caliphs’ rule, would charge them with a fault and, from its religious dimension, had rendered the government apparatus empty-handed.
There is no definitive and clear document available as to what extent the Umayyad’s government apparatus had paid attention to the concept of Imam Ṣādiq’s (P.B.U.H.) challenging establishment of knowledge and jurisprudence; however, it is strongly supposed that at the time of ‘Abbasids and especially Manṣūr, who possessed great intelligence and shrewdness, and because before his (tenure as) caliphate he had spent his entire life in an environment of struggle against the Umayyads and he had knowledge about the precise points concerning the ‘Alawite struggles and fighters, and the heads of the caliphate apparatus would pay especial attention to the effective role of this struggle.
Manṣūr’s unlimited threatens, pressures, and intransigencies toward the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) educational and jurisprudential activities that have been mentioned in many historical narrations were just some that had been due to this attention and feeling; as well as his vehement emphasis and insistence about bringing the famous jurisprudents of Ḥijāz and Iraq together in his governmental headquarters–which again, is the theme of several historical narratives–came from this same feeling of necessity.
In the Imam’s (P.B.U.H.) talks and teachings to his companions and those close to him, it can be clearly seen that benefitting from the factor of “the caliph’s lack of knowledge” as a reason as to why, according to Islam, they do not have right to rule; that is, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) has explicitly brought up the same challenging themes that his lectures on jurisprudence and the Qur’ān had also included.
In a hadith by the Imam (P.B.U.H.) it has been reported that:
«نحن قوم فرض الله طاعتنا و انتم تاتمون بمن لا یعذر الناس بجهالته»
[We are the ones who Allah has made obligatory their obedience, whereas you obey those people that will not be excused by Allah for their ignorance]; and this is while you are obeying those that because of their ignorance people will not be excused before Allah. That is, as a result of their leaders and authorities’ ignorance, the people who have become misguided and have taken a path other than the path of Allah, cannot resort to the excuse in the presence of Allah that we did not take the wrong path based on our own diagnosis; rather, it was our rulers and leaders who, due to their ignorance, have drawn us toward this path because obeying such leaders is a misdeed in itself; so, he cannot justify future misdeeds. This concept that the political leadership in a revolutionary society of Islam is the same revolutionary leadership and is necessarily on the same path with the intellectual and ideological leadership, has existed openly in the teachings of the Imams (P.B.U.T.) before and after Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.), as well. In a narration, Imam ‘Alī b. Mūsā (P.B.U.H.), quotes His Holy grandfather Imam Muḥammad Bāqir (P.B.U.H.) who likens the “weapon” in the line of ancestry of the Imamate to the “arc of the covenant” among the people of the past of the Children of Israel (Banī Isrā’īl): “Among us the weapon is like the arc of the covenant among the Children of Israel, which everyone holds, the Prophethood–and in a narration, the governance–would belong to him. Among us, everyone who has the weapon, leadership and authority belongs to him.”–Attention should be paid to the symbolic form and the profound concept of this phrasing;–the narrator then asks:
«أفیکون السلاح مزایلا للعلم»
[Can the weapon be with someone in whom there is no knowledge of religion?]
Meaning that: Is it possible that a weapon be with someone who does not have ideological knowledge of religion? In reply the Imam (P.B.U.H.) answered: No! That is, the governance of a society and revolutionary leadership of the Muslim nation is in the hands of the one who has both the weapon and knowledge combined.
So, on the one hand, the Imam (P.B.U.H.) considers the provision of the Imamate to be the knowledge of religion and a correct understanding of the Qur’ān, on the other hand by spreading the scientific domain and gathering a large group of eager people and instructing them with an especial method that is in contradiction with the normal routine of jurisprudence and tradition and interpretation and, in general, contradictory to the popular theology of the scholars, specialists in traditions and interpreters who are dependent on the caliphate’s apparatus, (the Imam (P.B.U.H.)) practically proves his own theology and the lack of theology of the caliphate’s apparatus with all its dependent and famous scholars, and thereby, gives a new dimension to his struggle through a continuous, profound, and calm challenge.
As it was pointed out before, prior to attaining power, the first ‘Abbasid rulers, who had themselves spent years in the environment of ‘Alawite’s struggles and alongside the followers and companions of ‘Alī’s household (P.B.U.T.) and knew many of their secrets and had insight of their tactics, and understood the challenging role of this lesson and discussion and tradition and interpretation before their Umayyad predecessors. Apparently, that is why Manṣūr ‘Abbāsī, during the wicked clashes with Imam Ṣādiq (P.B.U.H.), had prohibited the Imam (P.B.U.H.) from sitting among the people and teaching them about religion for a long period of time, and had forbidden the people from visiting the Imam (P.B.U.H.) and asking him questions; to the extent that according to Mufaḍḍal b. ‘Umar–the illustrious and well-known Shi‘ite figure–whenever an issue concerning marriage, divorce, and so forth rose for someone, he could not easily get the answer from his holiness.,